Twitter—

• Fun 'rithmatic.

• Americans haven't yet come to grips with the meaning of data security. (That link will probably rot pretty soon.)

Ten-second rule at our house. God gave us an appendix for a reason.

Dalmations, the sequel.

• Via Amy & Cathy Young, this is an extraordinary twitter thread. Read a few of the follow-ups ("7½.")

• And here's a sordid tale of killing & scandal—

Both families denied any romantic or sexual connection between the dead man and the socialite.

Currently, she faces 25 years in jail, but a fine is more likely.

"God gave us an appendix for a reason."

God knew we needed a section for the bibliography.

I'd have to know what the floor looked like first. Yes, I was raised in a barn.

Response to Ms. Paxton Smith, the Richardson, Texas valedictorian who spoke against the recent Texas abortion bill:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dear-paxton-smith-abortion-isn-221258303.html

By Cynthia M. Allen.

She has some good points, I suppose, but there are also "gems" like this:

"Children are not a barrier to your success, and our culture fails you for not repeating this truth loudly and often."

(Try telling that to all the white, middle-class girls who ended up NOT finishing college or going at all, let alone getting the jobs they would have PREFERRED, because they became teen mothers. Not to mention all the poorer teen mothers who don't even manage to graduate high school.)

"Having a child at any age, even with ample resources, will require sacrifices. They will be worth it."

(Not when you didn't want the kid - or when you learn to love the kid but your partner never does and you become a single parent. Just because a minority of women CHOOSE to raise children alone even before they get pregnant doesn't mean most mothers would prefer that choice to childlessness.)

"Your worry about failing contraception reminds me of the lamentable reality that women today are not taught to appreciate their bodies. Too few of us are schooled in the knowledge of what our bodies tell us — like the biological markers that let us know when pregnancy is possible."

(What in the world makes anyone think that "natural family planning" should be appealing to non-religious women, in particular? Given the Real Life Failure Rate, which is certainly higher than the 6% failure rate of the Pill, the woman is more likely, with NFP, to be quaking in fear until she gets her period. How does that not ruin the fun of sex? Or is that the point?)

"And I hope that you will come to fully appreciate that motherhood isn’t the end of your dreams and ambitions, but their true fulfillment."

(Again, not if you don't want a kid and/or can't afford one. 60% of women who have abortions ALREADY have children.)

At least - and this is interesting - Allen didn't try to suggest that adoption is the answer. There's a reason that single women who reluctantly give birth very seldom choose adoption - it's typically a life-long trauma. Whereas abortion is seldom traumatic in the long run, in part because the women who are likely to regret having one, DON'T have abortions in the first place.

And, regarding this -

"Children are not a barrier to your success, and our culture fails you for not repeating this truth loudly and often."

I forgot to say: Wasn't it CONSERVATIVES who accused FEMINISTS, fairly or not, of saying that women could "have it all"? So now they're accusing feminists of saying the opposite? Which is it?

And, regarding Allen's opposition to artificial birth control, you'd think people like her would be only too happy - and keep quiet - about liberals using those methods. What's stopping conservatives from having extra babies to bring up the birth rate, if they're so worried about it? Maybe even THEY secretly don't want more than two kids, on average? Or, at least, no more kids than will stand in the way of the middle-class lifestyle?

Sure lenona, not everyone is cut out for parenthood. But don't drink too much of the feminist koolaid.

Somebody thinks way too highly of their "career." It's a pretty shallow way to define success.

When you die, they'll be interviewing your replacement before your body cools.

> When you die, they'll be
> interviewing your replacement
> before your body cools.

Families churn as well; not sure what point you're making.

Thanks, Crid. I'd add that very few Americans can name all eight of their great-grandparents on command.

And, I'm not sure which definition of the verb "churn" you meant, but here's a definition of the NOUN that I never heard of:

"short for churn rate"

"the annual percentage rate at which customers stop subscribing to a service or employees leave a job."

And, Appalachia, while I would certainly agree that becoming a fashion designer or a pro athlete would be shallow, exactly what is shallow about becoming a firefighter, a teacher, a nurse, a scientist, etc.? I.e., someone who's actually highly USEFUL to society? Would you call Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s life "shallow"? Even good parents can have children who become career criminals. Also, semi-rotten parents like Einstein and Gandhi certainly wouldn't have been less accomplished - or less beloved by the world - had they NOT had children.

Other CF (or childless) people who definitely haven't been forgotten, for solid reasons:

Louisa May Alcott, Marian Anderson, Susan B. Anthony, Louis Armstrong, Dr. Robert C. Atkins, Jane Austen, Samuel Beckett, Beethoven, William Blake, Pablo Casals, Julia Child, Copernicus, Simone de Beauvoir, Leonardo, Rene Descartes, Emily Dickinson, Benjamin Disraeli, Dorothea Dix, Francis Drake, Amelia Earhart, T.S. Eliot, Havelock Ellis, Elizabeth I, Dian Fossey, W.S. Gilbert, Robert Goddard, Emma Goldman, Edward Gorey, Martha Graham, Georg Friedrich Handel, Katharine Hepburn, Grace Hopper, Joan of Arc, Samuel Johnson, Immanuel Kant, Helen Keller, Tom Lehrer, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Margaret Mitchell, Iris Murdoch, Ralph Nader, Isaac Newton, Nietzsche, Florence Nightingale, Ursula Nordstrom, Rudolf Nureyev, Dorothy Parker, Rosa Parks, Dolly Parton, Linus Pauling, Anna Pavlova, Samuel Pepys, Wendell Phillips, Plato, Edgar Allan Poe, Beatrix Potter, Ayn Rand, A. Philip Randolph, Ginger Rogers, Dr. Lee Salk, Jean-Paul Sartre, Maurice Sendak, George Bernard Shaw, Gertrude Stein, Gloria Steinem, Nikola Tesla, Amerigo Vespucci, Ethel Waters, Eudora Welty, Mae West, Edith Wharton, Baroness White, Walt Whitman, Margaret Bourke-White, Dick Whittington, Thornton Wilder, Oprah Winfrey, Virginia Woolf, Wilbur Wright,and Émile Zola.

(And a lot more.)

"Appalachia" says a "career" is "a pretty shallow way to define success."

Jus' sayin'.

"no more kids than will stand in the way of the middle-class lifestyle"

I should have said "not enough kids to stand in the way of the middle-class lifestyle."

Indeed, Crid. What are you saying? It wasn't clear to me, unfortunately.

Because I think what I was saying is pretty clear. The vast majority of people work to live, not live to work. Particularly when it is working for someone else. The vast majority aren't going to find their way onto the Forbes list of billionaires.

And lenona, being useful to "society" in the ways you described is also a pretty shallow way of defining success. At least from my perspective. I don't know 99.999999+% society and I don't care to. But that's the point, isn't it? We all have our own definitions of what is a successful life. That list you provided ... I doubt if any of them chose what they did because it was "useful to society." It would certainly be a sad commentary on their lives if that was their motivation. They likely did it because they were interested in what they did, and happened to be pretty good at it. And now they are gone from the gene pool, to be completely forgotten in another dozen generations or so.

You get your hackles up when someone else tries to define it for you, and yet you seem to want to be able to define it for society at large. Or at the very least has a different definition than you. Your lengthy response was no different than the article you were referring to. But by all means, be happy dying in your penthouse with your cats gnawing at your face.

I.e., someone who's actually highly USEFUL to society?

So, a professional athlete who keeps millions entertained or a fashion designer who contributes beauty to the world are "useless" to society?

By their efforts and the ancillary efforts of others, both help to keep people employed. Both contribute taxes to the common weal - through the employment of others as well as purchases of material goods by both themselves and those for whose employment they are directly responsible.

While your efforts to laud the contributions of firefighters, teachers, nurses, and scientists are commendable, your casual dismissal of the efforts of those who do not meet your standards of "useful" are somewhat myopic. Anyone who contributes to the common good is "useful to society," in whatever way he or she contributes.

"They also serve who only stand and wait." ~ John Milton ("On His Blindness")

Thank you, Conan. You did a better job than I did, and I fear I was a bit rude to lenona as well. These are the times I wish for the ability to edit comments.

The people I fear the most are the ones that want to impose their concepts of what is right, what is wrong, what is useful, what is not. Believe me, you don't want to give me that power, as I am way too judgmental.

People should have the freedom to live their own lives, however they see fit. The freedom to hold their own ideals. And the freedom to associate with whomever they wish, which implies the freedom to not associate with whomever they wish. The freedom to pick your own values. Whatever floats your boat.

These freedoms are accompanied by the iron law of living with the consequences of those beliefs.

Those that denigrate family and having children in favor of pursuing their own selfish goals will not reap what they failed to sow. Do all families end up Rockwellian successes? Of course not. But I'd wager far more come close than career-oriented workaholics end up with slam-bang promotions, awards, recognition and adulation of their peers, and golden pocket watches after 40 years of being NOTHING but a readily-interchangeable wage slave. But that's just my opinion. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. But you wouldn't be here if your parents felt differently.

But you wouldn't be here if your parents felt differently.
___________________________________

One can't CARE when one doesn't exist.

Cynthia Lennon said, soon before she died, that she would have walked away from John had she really known what he was going to be like. I.e., they had already grown far apart before he met Yoko.

Obviously, she would never have had Julian had she done that - but by saying that, she showed she was smart enough to realize that you can't miss a particular child you never had - and she likely would have had children with someone else anyway, had she wished. (Not to mention that she DID learn that John was not a great father - even Sean once said John used to yell at him for no reason.)

And may I add that I don't even want a cat, though it would be far less trouble than a dog - and I adore other people's pets. I simply would resent having to spend so much money on food and vet bills. You never know when disaster is going to strike your OWN life, and then you'll need that money. Plus, of course, pets tend to die before you do and thus break your heart - after all, they're easier to love than people.

I'm also puzzled by your last paragraph. You make it sound as though corporate jobs are practically the only jobs that exist. Nonprofits exist. Small businesses exist. Self-employed people exist. (I like Tim Severin's books on his travels and the "mythological" boats he built for that purpose.) Good FRIENDS exist - and help each other.

So, a professional athlete who keeps millions entertained or a fashion designer who contributes beauty to the world are "useless" to society?
_____________________________________

No. Just far LESS useful.

Maybe I should have blamed Americans more than the people they tend to worship. It isn't the fault of even the more famous educators, after all, that it would never occur to Americans to put their faces on the money, the way they do in Japan - along with doctors and writers. See here for more on that:

https://www.timeout.com/tokyo/things-to-do/who-are-the-people-on-japanese-yen-banknotes

And, on fashion: A beautiful painting in a museum can be enjoyed by all (many museums have free days), but brand-name fashions encourage snobbery, materialism, and definitely shallowness, all of which are hurtful to society. (Also, an awful lot of fad clothes end up in landfills, since no one will wear them anymore.)

And yes, we all like passive entertainment, just as most of us like ice cream, but neither our minds or bodies can live on those things, and we do young people no favors when we try to pretend otherwise. The people at this blog tend to be unanimous on that when it comes to sugar, so what's the difference?

Again, it's primarily the fans who are to blame when they worship people far more than they deserve - to the point where they ignore their crimes. (It's not just the TEEN star athletes who think they can drive drunk and commit violent crimes as much as they please, after all - anyone knows that.)

"Amusement is the happiness of those who cannot think."
-Alexander Pope.

By the way, when I compiled that list of childfree/childless people, earlier, I left out a great many living actors, even though they were over 60. Why? Because they're actors. I love old movies, especially, and I wish I had more chances to show certain forgotten gems to young people - such as William Powell movies - but that doesn't change the fact that there are very good reasons that parents and teachers alike would prefer to see kids spend MORE time on reading - for FUN.

The same goes for the video game industry, of course. Just because it's a huge, taxpaying business doesn't mean it's good, overall, for the nation's intellect.

Wasn't hedonism at least part of the reason for the fall of Rome?

No. Just far LESS useful. ~ lenona at June 8, 2021 7:46 PM

By what measure? By whose standards?

You are applying arbitrary standards to the "value" of a human being by his or her chosen occupation, by his or her physical or mental ability. This sort of ranking the "usefulness" of people leads to exclusion and, eventually, tyranny. Totalitarian societies decide what pursuits are "useful" and restrict those that are not. Those societies restrict the choices of individuals in the name of "the good of the many." Translated, that phrase means, "the good of those in power."

When I was a child, one of my favorite books was Frederick by Leonard Lionni. In it, a field mouse spends his days gathering feelings, colors, sights, smells instead of working with his fellow field mice to gather roots, nuts, and berries for the long winter. In an especially long winter, the food runs out (of course, if Frederick had helped gather food, there may have been enough, but that's not the point). Despairing, the field mice turn to Frederick and demand to know what he can contribute to alleviate their plight. He contributes what he has collected - the feels, sights, sounds, smells of summer.

Of course, the book's a metaphor for the value artists, authors, and entertainers bring to the world. Lenona, you're quick to dismiss what those arts you don't like can contribute, to call them "less useful." However, art, literature, drama, music, architecture, poetry, dance, and even fashion and athletics contribute to the world; these make life worth living.

Imagine what life would be like without these things. Imagine a world with no color, no music, no fashion, no sports; a world in which every building is a brutalist concrete monstrosity, in which every suit is gray, in which every song or painting or movie celebrates only what the state allows it to celebrate.

Imagine a world in which your existence is regulated by someone who decides, arbitrarily, what your "usefulness" to society is and accommodates you accordingly. We already know what life in this kind of world is like. We've seen it in East Germany and the USSR. We see it today in North Korea. Let's not see it in the US.

Be careful ceding control over your life to others, Lenona, even others whose beliefs and philosophies mirror your own, perhaps especially to them.

==========

Wasn't hedonism at least part of the reason for the fall of Rome? ~ lenona at June 8, 2021 7:46 PM

Hedonism is the over-indulgence in sensuous pleasure, not the mere existence of it. And that over-indulgence is an individual choice.

Rome fell because the government distorted the risk/reward paradigm in an effort to placate a restless public. Spending all day at the baths or the circuses no longer meant missing work and starving. Thus, citizens could over-indulge and not pay a price for it as they became dependent upon the state for their very existence.

As a result of turning its citizenry into dependents, the government had to rely on foreign mercenaries for the empire's defenses, on foreign labor for its labors, and on foreign capital for its finances.

> your casual dismissal of the
> efforts of those who do not
> meet your standards of
> "useful" are somewhat myopic

Just wait until "all the nations unite," and she has a seat on The Committee. That's right… THAT Committee. She has a *lot* of judgements to share!

"I'm also puzzled by your last paragraph."

Clearly. You appear to be one of those self-absorbed people that just don't "get it." Those people, should they survive long enough, generally get it when it is decades too late. Ignored. Unwanted. Unloved. Alone. Warehoused in some elder care facility. And with nothing to show for it that will last beyond a couple of generations, at best.

Yes, family is messy. It involves people, after all, and people can be complex and messy. But your children are a true legacy; your genetic lottery ticket that gives you a chance to have an impact that echos through the ages. A non-truncated existence.

It makes me curious about the relationship you had with your own parents. Do you love your casual acquaintances, friends, and coworkers the same way you love your parents?

"You make it sound as though corporate jobs are practically the only jobs that exist. Nonprofits exist. Small businesses exist. Self-employed people exist."

And you think that makes a difference? You are a replaceable cog in everything you do to earn a living. Your value to a business enterprise is nothing more than dollars and cents on a ledger. Nobody will mourn your absence to the degree your children will (assuming you weren't a total jerk to them). Siblings may be a bit different, because of the inherent competition, but I think we were discussing the choice to have children.

Warehoused in some elder care facility.
________________________________________

I've heard MANY times (sometimes from nurses) that there's no shortage of parents in nursing homes whose children can't be bothered to visit or call.

Or, as the saying goes: "A mother can take care of ten children, but sometimes ten children can't take care of one mother." In other words, having kids is no guarantee you won't live - or die - alone.

And even if that doesn't happen, of course we don't usually love people our age or younger the way we do a parent. Apples and oranges. Even so, if teens prefer being with their friends to being with their parents, what's strange about that?

Most of us know people who worship and mourn the late, beloved celebrities with whom they co-existed but never met - often as much as they mourn their late, loved but boring relatives. (Leaving aside those who died unexpectedly.) Do we not also mourn long-term when we lose our best friends?

Another well-known saying: "You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your relatives."

Not to mention that we're usually free to take long breaks from our friends as we please. The fact that you often can't do that with relatives - parents or not - means that you end up spending a lot of time with people with whom you have little in common.

Yet another saying. "Love is the extra effort we make in our dealings with people we do not like." (If that isn't an apt description of sibling relationships, in particular, what is? But it describes many parental feelings as well - or the child's feelings, depending on who is in the role of caretaker, physically or otherwise.)
______________________________________

Conan: However, art, literature, drama, music, architecture, poetry, dance,
________________________________________

Believe me, I DO think those are distinctly more useful (and democratic) than high fashion or sports. Yes, they can be used snobbishly, but you don't have to PAY for them as much, thanks in part to libraries and TV, and that makes a huge difference. Plus, of course, they appeal to the intellect (and imagination) on a level that current high fashion and sports do not.

To put it another way: leaving aside the fact that there's no shortage of profane, nasty, vulgar, shallow celebrities in ANY profession, can we really blame any parent for feeling dismay when a teen's primary idols are fashion models - or when a teen son wants to use sports as an excuse not to study or read, even Sports Illustrated, because reading is too much worrrrrK?

"I've heard MANY times (sometimes from nurses) that there's no shortage of parents in nursing homes whose children can't be bothered to visit or call."

That's natural these days, because rarely do the generations live together in the same household anymore. The mobility of society is what creates this. My grandmother lived out the last years of her life either at my parents' home or my aunt and uncle's. Elder care wasn't really a thing in the 60's, and she couldn't have afforded it if it was. My parents, now both in their 90's, are happy to see me when I can visit them (in another state in a retirement facility), infrequent though it may be. Of course parents want to be visited; they have very little else to do with their time once they get to a certain age. They don't agonize over when I can't visit, they celebrate when I can.

The ones that still have their rational awareness know that younger generations living far away are hard-pressed to make frequent visits. Especially if they are raising an even younger generation. The time, the expense, the disruption to their schedules. I'd love to have my children visit me more, even being on my own. But I certainly don't resent their having busy lives and living somewhere else. I just enjoy their company when they can. Some people just don't know how to be alone with themselves; it's like they never really grew up. There is a difference between dying without any children to care about you or visit your grave or point out who you are in a photo to a grandchild, and dying knowing that they are there carrying on doing those things, even if they can't be there. Those are different kinds of alone.

"Most of us know people who worship and mourn the late, beloved celebrities with whom they co-existed but never met - often as much as they mourn their late, loved but boring relatives. (Leaving aside those who died unexpectedly.) "

Sounds more like mental illness to me. Or at least a personality disorder. Those people are f*d in the head. I don't know anyone like that.

"Do we not also mourn long-term when we lose our best friends? "

I never have. And having served in the military, I had plenty of good friends that died young. And I'm reaching that age where plenty of my peers are dropping like flies. I don't mourn their passing. As the saying goes, just be grateful that such [people] lived and I got to know them. Mourning is basically wasted energy. Everyone dies alone. There's no avoiding that.

I guess the bottom line is that people are going to value what they are going to value. If you value your career and being independent and those trappings of "success," fine. For those of us with children and relatively normal families, those measures of success pale in comparison ... kind of the way you [lenona] think certain pursuits aren't worthy or aren't "as useful" as others. That's how I feel about people that avoid having families out of selfishness; those lives just aren't as "useful." Raising good children is far more rewarding than "art, literature, drama, music, architecture, poetry, dance." More rewarding than any way I can think of to make a living. Because raising good kids has some of all of that built-in. They aren't mutually exclusive.